Talk:Charter
3.2.5 Does "On joining" apply to full membership, provisional membership, or both? Do the new magi need to submit copies of all their lab texts to the library? --James 03:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC) :: Yes, they do.--Perikles 15:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC) Charter Construction For those interested, I have been tinkering with the Charter ever since we begun the game and have only just completed it this week. This was partially because it was a long document and I wanted to do it justice properly, and partially because at the slower points of the game so far, I would lose interest for a while. I was interested in trying to make a charter which would not only be fair to all the characters who signed it, would make our lives easier as players as well. I also wanted to include the possibility of new players who might join us in the future. It was also somewhat of a personal project for myself as well, as I have not done much of this type of thing since my days studying law at university. I consulted a number of different sources; the Claxby-Puckace Charter, the Kilkullen Charter, the Monadliath Charter and the Severn Temple Charter. Also of some interest was the Charter of Urso, an actual historical document, originally drafted by Julius Caesar. These sources were influential in my design and elements of each of them feature in this charter. In each case, I adopted what I viewed as the most fair and helpful sections and altered them or clarified them where neccessary, in my opinion for the benefit. In some cases, for the hope of completeness, I included completely new sections. The other over-riding issue in my mind was to make sure the Charter supported a Spring Covenant which would hopefully develope into a Summer Covenant. It is my belief that the Covenant is the heart and soul of the magi and thus if it prospers, so does the magi. So in some cases I have leaned more toward the Covenant itself, over the individual magus. However, as the Covenant actually supports and provides for the magi as a group, this is a good thing in my opinion, and actually a central point for forming a Covenant at all. Finally, I'd just like to say that this is the first time today that anyone, including James, has seen the full document. I have spoken to some of the players and our ST about some of the particular articles, paragraphs and subsections when I was after some feedback or stuck with a direction to proceed in, or sometimes a wording. However, none of them have seen the final document. So, I feel rather like an artist revealling their masterpiece today. I hope it will prove useful and a game aid, because apart from anything else, it was generally a lot of fun to write and interesting to research. --Perikles 09:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC) ---- Comments :Very, very impressed. :One important comment that may require an amendment. What about twilight? 13.2.5 defines a full council as being all living Members - which means, AFAICT, that if one of the Magi is in (non-final) twilight a Full Council cannot be called? :--Corbonjnl 14:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC) ::Also impressed. I've done a quick edit on it to remove a few spelling errors, and will read through it in more detail later. ::One thought which has already crossed my mind, and which might make some of the sections less complicated - a large number of clauses, as written at present starting "All Members shall have...", or similar, require a following clause along the lines of "This is a Right held by Provisional Members". It might be easier to remove all of these, and to change the clauses where it did not apply to read "All Full Members shall have...". A very small change might be needed to 3.2.1. to clarify Full Members. By removing the secondary clauses, it also would make numbering of the clauses much easier, as far fewer clauses would require a 3-level number. --OldNick 10:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC) ::And some proof reading / comments - they may look like quite a lot, but I suspect very few are contentious. They are mainly in sequence, but I have pulled a couple out ::Rights, Privileges and duties. Duty / duties is generally not capitalised, and does not occur in the section 13 definitions. Should it be, and should it? - It seems to me to complete that trio. ::Definition of members - As proposed "Member" means full members, unless specified otherwise, (13.2.9) and often needs another clause to expand it to include Provisional members. I would suggest that reversing it in 13.2.9, and using "Full" or "Provisional" only when explicitly needed, in line, rather than as an extra clause. This would make it cleaner to read, and reduce the number of clauses. ::Others... *3.2.4 Do we need to confirm "either full or provisional"? ** Actually, it's exactly half of the rights and privilages which are to include the provisional members, so whether we write in an exclusion or an inclusion it amounts to about the same thing. I think this is just a matter of style really, but if anyone feels strongly about it, bug me about it --Perikles 06:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC) *4.4 insert "have" into "shall the Right" ** Corrected. --Perikles 14:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC) *4.4 How can a mage move their sanctum? We may need the means to revoke by request of that mage. ** I don't see why a mage couldn't move their sanctum with Council approval. Is this talking about at this time, or shall we leave it until the event when it becomes an issue? I can't see any real argument happening over it. --Perikles 14:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC) *4.5.1 Does this not duplicate 4.3.1? ** Not exactly, no. The intention of Paragraph 3 is to allow access to physical locations, while Paragraph 5 relates to the library as a collection of texts. Perhaps an irrelevant distinction, but I thought it was better to er on the safer side. --Perikles 14:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC) *4.7.1 / 4.8.1 / 4.9.1 "A member shall have" A member shall have" "A Member has". Any reason for the change? "All members have"? ** Corrected.--Perikles 14:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC) *4.9.4 Line break ** Corrected.--Perikles 14:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC) *4.11.4 "...be allocated or given by the Covenant to..."? ** Not sure this is neccessary, as the Paragraph as a whole refers to obtaining vis from the Covenant. Also, the following line seems to be clear that a Member can provide vis to an apprentice from their own stores. --Perikles 14:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC) *6.2.2 Principes? Princeps? ** Corrected.--Perikles 14:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC) *6.4.2& 3 To be passed requires "Yay", not "Yay or Nay" ** Corrected. Thanks - that was a big one.--Perikles 14:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC) *6.5.2 "...considered Simple Votes" - but may contain matters which would normally require a Greater Vote? Request clarification. ** Yes, your understanding of this is correct. If I can get another supporting voice asking for it be clarified, I will do so. If not, I'll presume it's clear enough as it is.--Perikles 14:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC) *8 "books"? "texts", "writings" perhaps? ** Isn't this made clear later in the same section where it includes other texts or documents? --Perikles 14:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC) *8.5 Winter Solstice" - I think this is the first reference to the dates of quarterly council meetings. Should we spell it out somewhere? 5.3 / 6? ** Yes, this is a good point too. It was definitely my original intent to suggest a regular meeting each season based around the solstices and equinoxes. As this is actually a change to the actual Charter, not simply a typo correction or clarification, I'll talk about it more below.--Perikles 14:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC) *9.1.2 "affect, not "effect" ** Corrected. --Perikles 14:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC) *9.2.2. "first year of harvesting" - assumes annual, "first occurrence/occasion of harvesting"? ** Is this needed practically? Does anyone else think so? If I get another voice supporting, I'll change this. --Perikles 14:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC) *9.2.2 "distributed as detailed in Paragraph #" - "treated as described in paragraph 9.1.1"? ** Nope, should Paragraph 3. But still a mistake. Thanks. --Perikles 14:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC) *9.3.5 Might I suggest that if they have requested a vote by proxy, the holder of their sigil by proxy makes the choice? ** An interesting suggestion. One that I don't think I have a problem with. It creates a change though, so needs talking about.--Perikles 14:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC) *10.3 Should this not occur before 10.2, as it defines the Seneschal? ** This is very true. It's just a cosmetic change, but I don't want to play with this Charter more than I have to in an OOC way, so if someone else supports this, I'll re-arrange the Article 10's number, but leave the text. Otherwise, I'll leave it.--Perikles 14:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC) *10.5.4 I have a feeling that this would be treasonous ** Interesting point. The intention was just to show that the Covenant grounds would not be the property of any one member, but rather held and administered by the Covenant. Do you think I need to clarify this out? Probably a stupid question as you've raised it, but anyway...--Perikles 14:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC) *11.1.3 "more than penalty may be used" - insert "one"? ** Corrected. --Perikles 14:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC) *11.1.4 "a record" - perhaps we need a similar in article 6 - the council? ** Good point.--Perikles 14:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC) --OldNick 12:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC) Thanks for the comments and the spellchecking. I always forget to do that. Also, despite the fact I proofread it multiple times, there were lots of errors. It's one of those things where you read what you expect to, rather than what is actually there. *mutter* Anyway, I've corrected all the simple stuff - if anyone else catches anything, just let me know. As for the other stuff, which is more substantive, I'll deal with them in two types. The first is clarifications and cosmetic changes. I can do these if a couple of people want it easily enough. The second is more substantive changes which either add or change the way the Charter works. I'd prefer to deal with these IC through amendments, mainly because I don't want to open a host of discussion on the matter right now and delay the game any further. If we amend the Charter as we come to any problematic point as things go along, then it wont be such a chore and the decisions will probably go much faster. --Perikles 15:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC) I am very impressed. Well done! --Tim 19:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC) More Comments Just random stuff out of my brain. I didn't comment on some minor grammatical bits and bobs, but may get around to it ... *6.3.3 I think it's "abstention" rather than "abstinence" ** Quite right. Abstinence is a different thing :P --Perikles 08:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC) *6.3.4 Princeps is misspelled. ** Corrected.--Perikles 08:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC) *6.4.2 abstentions,again. ** Corrected.--Perikles 08:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC) *6.4.4 is a little awkward and could use a rewrite for clarity. ** I don't know. It seems clear to me - but then I wrote it. This is the main provision incidently which I would use to cover the problem of a mage in Twilight who couldn't participate, in the absence of us writing in a specific provision. --Perikles 08:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC) *** I guess it's the last sentence which gives me pause. If someone goes into Twilight, we can not have a Greater vote for 6 months - as it is written, as I see it. JBforMarcus 17:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC) *8.4.2 members should be plural but not possessive. ** Corrected. --Perikles 08:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC) *9.3.2 "there this division" should probably just be "this division" ** Corrected. --Perikles 08:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC) *10.1.2 This talks of earnings, do we actually mean "profits?" I think we do, right? Since the regular expenses and so forth are covered ... ** Quite correct. That's a very important point. 'Profits' is what I really meant, 'earnings' is wrong and would change thing significantly. Corrected. --Perikles 08:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC) *13.x I suggest we need definitions for terms like "covenfolk," "grog" and "specialist." specifically the line between the other categories and specialist needs to be clearly defined since special rules apply to specialists. ** Seems like a good suggestion to me. Shall I go ahead and add these in?--Perikles 08:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC) ***Please do. JBforMarcus 17:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC) A nice and thorough document. JBforMarcus 18:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC) Thanks for the comments. Very helpful.--Perikles 08:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC) Another few comments * 5.3.4 It is part of a Provisional member's duties to attend Council? :I did not find any provision to make sure they are informed of Council meetings. ::There would need to be a stated limited to the amount of effort expended (or the means employed) in attempting to inform a given provisional member about a meeting, to prevent meetings being obstructed by deliberate ignorance. This would have to be carefully stated, in order to prevent it being twisted in order to prevent members hearing about meetings, and to prevent argument. "Insufficient opportunity" would imply that success was mandatory? --James 04:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC) * 6.1.1 Should the reference really be only to 5.3? I had expected 4.1. * 6. Votes by sigil, How do we handle Councils during Tribunal or other situations when one or more members need to have their sigils on travels? Do Tremere(?) still keep their apprentice's sigils? * I would like a provision for asking (Provisional) Members to write up spells researched at the Covenant as a service. With the posibility of the (Provisional)Member requesting access to the spells to be limited to Full Members. * I would like a provision for disqualifying a vote order (6.3.4). If called by one member and supported by another a proposed vote should be re stated. :Wouldn't the original parties calling for the vote then similarly be entitled to call for the vote to be reworded as originally proposed? I don't think this works if it requires the same as, or fewer parties than originally proposed the vote. --James 04:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC) --SamuelUser talk:Samuel 20:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC) 6.4.3 A Greater Vote shall need at least and including two thirds of Member votes presented at a 'Yay' to have the motion passed. Abstentions are not counted. : This appears to be an incomplete/misworded sentence. --James 04:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC) I'm ready to sign it and take it for a test drive. JBforMarcus 14:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)